Bush may have started this "criminal" war, but obama is really screwing it up. The dead are piling up faster than under Bush.

I don't care what Nader or the Huffington Post print, but at least they aren't our dead. If Obama is killing terrorist leaders, what's a few bystanders ... especially given what war was like decades ago? Yes, this is recruiting replacements, but the bigger question is what it's doing to terrorism altogether. ??? If the net effect is in the free world's favor, good on Obama. Maybe if enough bystanders get fed up, they will stop harboring terrorists, supporting jihad, or letting terrorists hide among their families. Better a few of their bystanders than airplanes and buildings and stadiums full of deliberately targeted U.S. civilians.

No, I'm not saying I support drone warfare. I don't know enough about the whole story to make an informed choice ... and neither do any of you. Sure as HELL we won't get it from any media.

I must be slipping, I agree with Isobars. It is not clear whether or not the asymetric warfare of Rumsfeld and Obama is reducing or increasing terrorist threat. Of course Bard simply posts anything negative he can find about Obama, without actually thinking about what it means.

A more difficult and nuanced subject than Republican talking points--and perhaps even than the understanding of most Republicans. Remember, they kicked the smart ones who listen out.

Another screed from Isobars that illustrates his refusal or inability to empathize with anyone living a life of different experiences and outlooks. A few bystanders are a few people, people with families. If someone in my family got mistakenly whacked by a foreign missile, drone or otherwise, I sure as heck would harbor a grudge against the country which I thought committed the attack. If I was uneducated, fundamentalist and my daughter was killed by a missile, I imagine I certainly would support those who fight the USA.

Bystanders don't get fed up with the terror/power rings because a foreign power is killing friends and family, unless that ring is so unbelievably awful and the bystander can see a way out after criticizing the terror ring. Very few local residents stood up to the Taliban because of the violent ramifications in doing so. Go along to get along is the survivors' story. Other than the 2003 success with the Northern Alliance, the entire strategy since that time has been to win hearts and minds and -most importantly- have the back of the locals who resist this common enemy. This policy has worked where sufficient boots were on the ground and in cases where the Afghan Army manages to secure and keep territory. Being fed up with the Taliban overly simplifies a much more complex circumstance.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is much truth to that based on human reaction to outsider intervention that has nothing to do with an objective political analysis employed to choose sides._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

Very good article. Unfortunately there are guys like Mac and Weiss that think the average republican voter is like Bush or Cheney. We are diverse and feel that our country is out of control. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and other common sense guys will be taking this party over in 2 years.

Dems might want to get rid of some of the progessives next time around.

The sooner that Ted Nugent's plug is pulled the better. He's an example of some of the worst right wing noise out there. In my view, he's offering heavy metal nonsense for the weak minded folks out there that are full of hate and disdain for the majority of Americans.

Bard takes the bait. Random fascists running around the country with complete ignorance of the Constitution. Don't they call them "nutters" in England?

You guys really do want to destroy the party of Lincoln. And you gave Armey $8 million to just go away. And $300 million to Rove to lose the election. Tell me again about how efficient business is?

I heard a great line about fund raising. McCain spent $40 billion to raise $120 billion. Hillary spent more than she raised. Obama spent a few hundred thousand to raise all the money he needed in 2008. Which of these people actually has an idea about how to spend money efficiently?

Quote:

Just to rub a little salt in the wounds of the clueless:

In the aftermath of the 2012 election, the nation's big money donors may be reassessing their "investments" -- particularly those managed by Republican strategist Karl Rove.

This election was fought on razor-thin margins. An estimated $1.41 billion in disclosed outside spending and an unknown amount of undisclosed "dark money" was spent to sway a relatively small number of undecided voters. The vast majority of that spending went to help Republicans (or attack their Democratic opponents), and given the outcome of Tuesday's election, that money was largely wasted.

Republican mastermind Karl Rove was responsible for most of the damage. Together, his SuperPAC American Crossroads and 501(c)(4) "dark money" group Crossroads GPS reported spending $175 million (when undisclosed spending is taken into account, the actual total may be as high as $390 million), but accomplished very little of consequence. A post-election analysis by the Sunlight Foundation found that very few of the candidates supported by Rove's groups emerged victorious on Tuesday. Just 1.29% of the $104 million spent by American Crossroads backed a winning candidate. Crossroads GPS fared slightly better, achieving a 14.4% return on its $70 million in reported spending.

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do ... I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."

Rove was the chief strategist of George Bush's 2000 and 2004 political campaigns and was often referred to as "Bush's Brain." He was also the mastermind of the successful Republican Congressional campaigns of those years, when the GOP secured both the Senate and the House. In 2010, Rove capitalized on the Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited fundraising for Super PACs, and was credited with taking the House back and reducing the Democrat majority in the Senate. Now his reputation for genius is in jeopardy.

In this cycle, Rove moved quickly to repeat his 2010 success, and traveled the country convincing individual high-rollers to spend more than ever before. But he accomplished far less. The losses were so significant even real estate tycoon Donald Trump tweeted that the group had "blow[n] $400 million this cycle."

The vast majority of funds spent by American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were invested in races they ultimately lost: the presidential race (where they spent at least $110 million), as well as Senate races in Virginia (at least $10 million spent trying to elect George Allen), Florida (at least $7.7 million spent helping Connie Mack), Wisconsin (at least $7.3 million to elect Tommy Thompson), Ohio (at least $6.3 million to help Josh Mandel), Indiana (at least $3.3 million on Richard Mourdock), and Montana (at least $3.2 million on Dennis Rehberg).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum